Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Introversion, Dominance, and Sigma

Ever since Vox articulated his socio-sexual hierarchy I have been very interested in idea of a second dominant type, the sigma. For some reason I found the idea more attractive as an ideal than the more common alpha type. Initially it also seemed to be a genuinely original idea, though as I considered it I realized that without ever explicitly naming the concept, writers have instinctively acknowledged the second dominant type. Vox's hierarchy was simply the first to give it a name within the discussion of game.

There were however some problems. Since the discussion of game frequently revolves around the practical application of theoretical ideas, sigma seemed out of place. There was little discussion of how to emulate the sigma type, and so it had little significance beyond theory. By Vox's own admission the emulation of one of the significant traits, indifference, is nearly impossible to fake. In addition it was frequently misunderstood, which led to broad mockery of anyone who claimed this rare status. Eventually, most readers, including myself, seem to have gained an intuitive understanding of the idea, which led to some interesting discussions, but unfortunately there was still little talk of practical application. To be fair, Vox's reasons for coming up with the idea seem to be mostly theoretical. However I have always hoped for more than just theory.

The cause of these problems seems to be the lack of a precise definition. Intuitive understanding is certainly useful, but I find that once something has been defined clearly, it is much easier to discuss and the conversation tends to be more fruitful. To this end I have developed a possible working definition.

Recently I have been reading a great deal about introverts and their temperaments. The article Caring for Your Introvert, by Jonathan Rauschwhichseems to have generated some discussion on the Internet, has explained some of the more common traits that introverts display. This was the first article that got me to think about the relationship of game to introversion and extroversion, but the book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talkingby Susan Cain, was what led me to what I find to be a very useful definition of the sigma type.

Both works describe introversion, but Quiet offers much more insight. The book describes the traits that make up introversion, but more importantly, explains why those traits exist in the first place. For example, one of these traits is a general sensitivity to novelty and stimulus. In one of the cited studies, scientists found that babies who are more reactive (cry more) when startled tended to grow into more introverted adults. The converse was also true, in that less reactive babies grew into extroverts. This reactive tendency was found to be related to heightened activation in amygdala, the part of the brain correlated to emotions like fear and anger. Another trait was a reduced sensitivity to the pleasure chemical dopamine. This was correlated to fewer risk taking behaviors and an increase in caution. Other traits included the ability to concentrate on personal projects for a longer amount of time, a different style of leadership, a desire for deep conversation about subjects important to the introvert, desire for limited social interaction, and a preference to observe before jumping into social situations. All of these traits when combined with ALPHA dominance look remarkably like a theoretical sigma.

Now, it would be great to have a large number of verifiable sigmas in the same place to observe their behavior, but since they are rare and, by definition, solitary, I will have to justify my idea based on Vox's self-description and self identification as an introvert.

If I recall correctly, Vox once said that he “has the boundaries of a Rancor”, and the way he manages both his blogs and the debates therein supports this statement. As an introverted omega I have only recently begun to understand the significance of personal boundaries. Without personal boundaries, I used to worry about what everyone was thinking, since if they did not like me I could be subjected to mockery and ridicule, which as a high reactive introvert was extremely painful. As I have developed boundaries I have found that they are an antidote to this pain. In fact as they get thicker, I care less and less about what others think, because what they think can no longer hurt me. At the extreme of this I doubt that I will care about anyone's opinion. If dominance is about pursuing what you want, without apology, and introverts find others to be painfully overstimulating, then I can very easily imagine that one thing very introverted, dominant man instinctively desires is to be LEFT. THE. FUCK. ALONE.

For your consideration:

Vox has also said that he responds to interruption with unmitigated hostility. Introverts tend to prefer long and deep conversations about subjects that are important to them. Combine that with the ability to get people to do what you say, without apology, and you have a person who is not going tolerate interruption from a vapid extroverted female who thinks that it is okay to interrupt an important, enjoyable conversation.

On the subject of not caring what others think, introverts like to focus on important personal projects. They have great powers of concentration and memorization, and can study the same subject for years on end. Vox's ongoing interest in economics is an example of this. Now if you read with that degree of depth for that long, there are going to be very few people who will be able to keep up with you when you are discussing that subject. As someone who has this trait even I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they say something verifiably wrong, and refuses to change their stance. Intellectual contempt for other people's opinions must be like breathing for a sigma.

An increased sense of empathy is another introverted trait. This is caused by introvert's general over sensitivity. Personally I find this to be a nuisance. When you cannot help but feel bad for a person, even if their pain is self inflicted, your judgment tends to be poor. You want them to not feel bad, since their feelings are making you feel bad, and so you act in ways that lack self respect. In some cases empathy feels like drinking from a fire hose. I used to feel very afraid whenever anyone merely looked angry. As I have developed boundaries, this empathy is slowly decreasing. I suspect that as it gets stronger it will be much easier to not be afraid of other's emotions, since their emotions will have less effect on me. Vox has said that he is not afraid of others emotions. I really hope that I will get that far.

Finally the most obvious aspect of a sigma is that he is an outsider. I can easily imagine an dominant introvert seeking solitude. I know that reading about introversion has made me much more comfortable with seeking solitude. I have no desire to climb the social ladder and enter into the inner circle. I recognize that it may be necessary but if I do seek social situations it will be for my own reasons. Social skills are a means, not an end. Vox has said many times that he has no desire to lead, and I doubt there are many people he would follow. He seeks outsider status. Now, I suspect that an over abundance of ALPHA traits does allow for what I would call horizontal social mobility, which is the ability to succeed in social situations without trying. If you are dominant enough, people will naturally want you to lead and you will be pushed inward toward the center of most social circles. The world will be your oyster, just as it would be for an alpha. But a true sigma will have his own agenda, and will actively resist the efforts of extroverted others to recruit him. He will not care for leadership or the roles that others place him in. A sigma will choose solitude, because it fits his introverted nature. He will choose to be an outsider, because it makes him happy. And if game is about anything, it is about finding greater happiness.

59 comments:

Impressive analysis. I've never bothered delving into the concept since I find excessive navel-gazing to be absurd, but I think you've done an excellent job tracing the logic of introversion and connecting it to the socio-sexual hierarchy.

"Intellectual contempt for other people's opinions must be like breathing for a sigma."

This is certainly true. But, as you've noted, it's not ex nihilo or an assumed pose, it is the result of attention to detail and observation. And with regards to the very strong desire to be left alone, I suggest that physical transience might be a strong indicator of a sigma.

The longest I have ever lived anywhere was a place I did not initially speak a word of the language. Spacebunny once said that she knows it's time to move once we know too many people and have acquired too many social obligations.

As for the sexual rank aspects, the brooding, solitary loner has long been a sex symbol in romantic literature. It is also a powerful DHV when others must adopt a deferential and apologetic posture merely to speak with you.

You'd probably be surprised at the percentage of my conversations with women beginning with something like "I'm really sorry, but..." or "Is it okay if I bother you now...." Call it the Castle Doctrine.

General Trait's. Leave me alone. I have what I need. Folk's of good will I engage with. Having multiple children teaches you patience. Having a natural alpha older son gives me a person who I can have interesting discusions with. He told me his roomate at college is a manwhore. Has three on a string. I warned him to watch out for the girl's friends. My son has a LTR, and he probably doesn't want to screw it up. But I warned him of the temptation.

To what extent is Sigma "indifferent"? If you were humiliated and laughed at in public, you still wouldn't feel even a little bad?

I think it's possible to learn to be indifferent to most people's opinions of you. I haven't achieved this state yet, but I'm working towards it. All you need to understand is that most people have an incomplete picture of you, therefore your opinion of yourself should always take precedence of others', since you are the only one present 100% of the time.

Good post. I agree with most of it and you bring out good points. Agree totally on the contempt for others on topics you care about, and also the no leaders / no followers. I trended to anarchism as a teenager because of this.

As for practicality, I think the things a sigma should do with women are:

- play up the mystery- let others try to be conversational anchors. Hang back, look cool, and talk when you have something perceptive to say- wander off alot- keep a poker face unless the girl earns the reward of an emotional reaction

I've seen Meyers-Briggs typology touched on a little bit on a couple game blogs, but only in passing. I think it deserves a closer look in relation to game.

For instance, something a lot of people don't realize is that every personality has both introverted and extroverted functions. Even though introverts prefer their primary introverted function, the secondary extroverted function can be developed in order to make social interaction seem more natural and comfortable. This development can often come naturally if a person in their later teens is placed in an environment conducive to the development of that function. Unfortunately, the move from high-school to the rest of life is often exactly the sort of overwhelming, stressful input that can cause an introvert to shut down and essentially feed their descent into omega.

This is especially dangerous for thinking introverts. Thinking, in Meyers-Briggs terms, is not about intelligence, but about impersonal information processing and decision making functions. Feeling is not about being emotional, but rather is a process of personal, value-based decision making. So feeling introverts are still people persons, they either desire to care for other peoples needs or for someone to recognize and appreciate the things they value. Thinking introverts care for neither of these things, all we care about is logical systems or objective standards of behavior. I think this is why game appeals to so many thinking introverts, it takes something that appeared to us to be completely in the realm of the personal and applies a logical and empirical system to it. The idea that human interaction could be studied was revelatory to me. I've been on more successful dates this past year than in the previous 30 combined (I'm 31). I attribute it to a combination of both game and a deep understanding of the theory behind personality types.

"To what extent is Sigma "indifferent"? If you were humiliated and laughed at in public, you still wouldn't feel even a little bad?"

Not if I believed I didn't merit it, no. One benefit of having been a social outcast at a very young age is that one rapidly learns that one has very little need of others. The shift from outcast to outsider by choice is a little strange, as it can be somewhat confusing to go from being rejected by the crowd to being sought by it.

I suspect that most outsiders were, at some point, outcasts for one reason or another. But not always, some boys are simply wired that way. My son's natural level of social indifference makes me look like a needy attention whore by comparison, but then, my wife has an unusually solitary nature for a woman.

This makes me curious as well. It's different for women, I think (the whole herd mentality thing). I was an outcast as a child and because of this both learned to play the girl game (how to interact with girls) so I could interact when I needed and wanted to and I also learned how to be perfectly content with myself. I got alarmingly good at it in high school and was actually quite popular though I would not have said 98% of the people I knew were *friends*. I backed off in college because I was tired of not really having good friends and playing the game. Since I met my husband and married, we have a very few people we spend time with and spend most of it just the two of us perfectly happy.

I am not as good at the girl game as I used to be, but I no longer wish to put the effort into it. Most women don't think much of me, and that's fine. I am always very nice to them, but when I don't play the game I get the strange looks and they typically back off. They don't understand what is going on and it makes them uncomfortable and they usually just awkwardly walk away. It can be a bit painful at times as I have a pretty good idea what these women think of me, but . . . meh . . . I get over it pretty fast, especially since it is f my own doing. I think much of the initial pain is the herd mentality going haywire in my head and once I turn it off it's just a dull noise in the background.

Omega, son, the whole idea of "sigma" is a loner's conceit, it is a fantasy of power. Even worse than a delusion of grandeur, it is an attempt at universalizing the loser's life and thereby declaring it virtuous. Worst of all, it employs the skankiest leftist trick in the book -- redefining the language.

It makes me ill to think you, an earnest striver, will be chasing after this phantom. Leadership requires a measure of independence, yes, so that fellow packmates know you are worth following. But the leader cannot be defined by his separation from the pack, nor can you make up a category that includes all the behaviorial traits of the alpha but none of the purposes for which those traits were developed, i.e., leadership of a group.

An alpha is not a shepherd. A pack is not a herd. The pack is comprised of strong individuals led by an even stronger one, who binds them together by example, persuasion, and force.

This I could be an alpha but I don't wanna declaration smells deeply of bullshit. But whatever: self-delusions are your own problem. Just don't break the quarantine of Vox's fantasyland and imagine you can start rearranging the world into categories that highlight your perceived strengths. (Which likely aren't strengths recognizable outside your conceit, given that you alone feel it necessary to declare the standard measuring devices insufficient.)

"Far too many guys have the conception of a player as a man who lives alone, has no friends, and whose sole existence is chasing pussy. Yet consider the roots of the lone wolf metaphor.

A wolf doesn't wander alone because it wants to. A wolf wanders alone because it has grown old and useless to the pack. 'Man is a[] social animal,' Aristotle correctly noted thousands of years ago. A lone wolf is a reject."

-- From a more useful guide:http://dangerandplay.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/lifestyle-v-game-2/

Just watched those YouTube clips too. They are a fucking cartoon. If you are impressed by some Hollywood hack's understanding of "tough guy," your problems are much deeper than you think. Insofar as your idol Vox imitates this buffoonery, he is leading you astray.

Aloof means aloof. Try-hard is not aloof. Making a big show of one's independence means you are dependent on reaction, insecurely seeking confirmation by eliciting a stir.

...both edited like shit, but the two together captures the full effect, including the key explanation:

"Look at me. I'm thinking, You're mine. I fuckin' own you. What I'm not doing is feeling anything about it one way or the other. You understand? You're not a person to me, you're a name in my collection book, a guy owes me money, that's all."

Omega, son, the whole idea of "sigma" is a loner's conceit, it is a fantasy of power. Even worse than a delusion of grandeur, it is an attempt at universalizing the loser's life and thereby declaring it virtuous. Worst of all, it employs the skankiest leftist trick in the book -- redefining the language.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to be technical, Sigma is a type of ALPHA as defined by Roissy. The only stink of bullshit here is your own, as you clearly failed to understand that. There is no possible case of "I coulda been a contender" since the Sigma is, by objective definition, a winner.

You're making the same mistake that Omegas and Gammas do when they decide that they are Sigmas because they're social rejects. That's not the case at all.

They way I look at it is the same as basketball. Being dominant on offense ultimately just means scoring a lot of points. But there are lots of different player types that use a lot of different methods to achieve this. As a post player I use my broad shoulders and height to create space allowing me to get shots off right underneath the basket. For me the most important skills on offense are spot selection, footwork, and being able to throw out a variety of convincing pump fakes. These same skills are not useless to a point guard, but a point guard would not be able to play the same game that I do and be as effective as I am due to the size difference. Instead they need to be able to read the floor, dribble for extended periods without loosing the ball, and to be able to make great passes and shoot well from long range. Its a completely different skill set yet both positions can be dominant. And even then within the same position the way that Derick Rose and Steve Nash are dominant at the point guard position is completely different.

Social dominance is the same way. There are lots of different ways to achieve it, and each person trying to master should recognize that they are not going to do it in the exact same way as some one like Vox or Roissy. Instead an individual is going to have their own unique set of skills that will work together in a way that is different for them to achieve the same end results.

"To what extent is Sigma "indifferent"? If you were humiliated and laughed at in public, you still wouldn't feel even a little bad?"

Not if I believed I didn't merit it, no.

I just want to add to what Vox said, that it's not that Sigma's wouldn't/couldn't be humiliated or embarrassed, it's just that it's unlikely they would. They don't feel the need to work themselves into a the ebb and flow of a crowd setting and don't feed off the energy of others, so they're unlikely to put themselves into an awkward situation.

Time to pile on King Sized Asshole. Just reading your comments made me think that you are probably an extro, who simply can't conceive of another way.

Allow me to snowflake for the point of illustration.

I'm working a project right now that I have a lot of passion for, and I'm considered one of the key leaders and have been spending a lot of time persuading people to a certain point of view. But, I don't desire leadership in general. I just want this project done the way I think it should be done. So I'm alpha in this instance, but in others I'm a "leave me the fuck alone" sigma, which is my default mode.

I think that the 'Introverted Alpha' designation sums up the Sigma quite nicely.

I have always believed that there are basically two types of leaders: One says "I am teh boss!"...and insists everyone follow (Alpha). The second just does his thing with ambivalence and attracts those who wish to be in the jet stream. (Sigma)

One has a need for social dominance, the other has social dominance through his rejection of the caste.

The female response is the same, although I believe that each trait would attract a strikingly different female personality.

... It can be a bit painful at times as I have a pretty good idea what these women think of me, but . . . meh . . . I get over it pretty fast, especially since it is f my own doing. I think much of the initial pain is the herd mentality going haywire in my head and once I turn it off it's just a dull noise in the background."

You, young lady, think like a guy.

"...once I turn it off..."

Geesh...

Yeah, other women think you're from Vulcan or you're a robot.

Or they think you act like their husbands. I'll bet that freaks them right the heck out.

RM put empathy together with introversion in a way that really made sense to me, finally. Now I get an important part of why being around people too long makes me tired.

This realization coupled with something I read a few days ago make many interactions from my past make more sense. I'm referring to picking up on emotional states by looking a person in the eyes. A study found that brain states were mirrored in both brains when looking in the eyes. In effect it is possible to make someone feel what you are feeling.

I've remembered some rare conversations from my past where I did just that. I intentionally forced someone to feel what I was feeling and I did it by looking them in the eye and practically willing them to feel the intensity while we were talking.

It's funny how the sexes deal with it differently. Men just tell me to settle down if they pick up on it at all. Women literally run away. I mean I've seen them get an 'oh crap' look in their eyes and change the subject or make the conversation end completely. Which sometimes is exactly what I wanted to happen.

Women talk a good game about wanting to share your emotions but when it comes down to it they really don't, they only want to surf the easy waves. If things get too intense they just don't know how to handle it.

I'm not talking about crazy Kramer moments here. I'm talking about honest answers to questions someone asks, questions many times specifically asking how I felt about something. They asked for what I gave them.

I'm remembering moments with my ex-wife, she couldn't handle it at all. I could get maybe 20 minutes of serious conversation out of her before she retreated.

I was so clueless back then.

'But I'm feeling much better now.'

Bonus points if you can name the television show that last line came from.

"Women talk a good game about wanting to share your emotions but when it comes down to it they really don't, they only want to surf the easy waves. If things get too intense they just don't know how to handle it. "

Funny... there's a girl (29, but too flighty to be a "woman") that has tried to get me to open up and talk to her about serious stuff in life that bothers me.

Why? No idea. She seems as though she might be interested, but there are a ton of reasons that would be a bad idea.

But the moment I ask her anything serious about herself, she shuts down and retreats.

It's rather amusing. I find myself wanting to ask "Why the hell are you so scared of being real?"

You're not implying turning it off is a bad thing, right? I can't speak for other women (I assume it is the same, but could never say for sure) but the thunderous noise of the hamster is utterly deafening. No other thoughts can permeate that damn thing until it tires itself out or until one learns to turn it off. It took me a while, but turning that thing off is one of the more important things I have learned to do since I married.

Yeah. I got just about the reaction I expected from this blog. An indication of the value of a publication is the quality of reader attracted to it.

Scr00s wrote: "I have always believed that there are basically two types of leaders: One says 'I am teh boss!'...and insists everyone follow (Alpha). The second just does his thing with ambivalence and attracts those who wish to be in the jet stream. (Sigma)"

Of course there are different styles of leadership. The question is, why does this particular trait require the fabrication of an entirely new category of man? That was never adequately explained, and Occam's razor says it is an embarrassing attempt to project one's cherished idiosyncrasies over an already widely established method of communication.

I point out the obvious ... aaaand Vox's precious little stable of misfit comment lambs rise as one to bleat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV9iah71iPQ

Carry on. It sucks to be a chump, but you can salvage some dignity by binding together here in your chumpdom, where echoes soothe the anxieties of your reinforced "introversion." I get it.

We aren't talking about subatomic particles that are invisible to the naked eye, we are talking about people whose personality type is real and observable. You can find the sigma without too much effort. Previous commenters have it right: an extrovert can not get in side the mind of an introvert, and vice versa.

Just because you don't understand the sigma doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

I say this having no idea where I fall into the socio-sexual or even sexual spectra, so I can't be accused of putting myself in a category I don't belong in.

"indyguy77@work February 15, 2012 5:19 AM said...... But the moment I ask her anything serious about herself, she shuts down and retreats.

It's rather amusing. I find myself wanting to ask "Why the hell are you so scared of being real?""

The inability to share something of their own is different than wanting to share something from another person.

I've seen what you are describing. Here's my take on what is going on. First the converse of the behavior.

Women share their past when they are qualifying themselves to a man. I've had it happen to me quite a few times. Every time it happened I sat there and wondered, 'why did she just tell me that? I didn't ask to know that. I'm pretty sure I didn't want to know that.' I didn't react negatively to what they said in fact I didn't react at all mainly because I didn't know what to say. But the important part was she wanted me to know it and she had gauged that I wouldn't reject her for telling me.

Now, if they don't want to share something it means she is deeply ashamed of it in relation to how she thinks you will perceive it. She may not be ashamed of it enough to avoid doing it again but she knows you won't like it and therefore that part of her past she will not share, ever. If you want to find out what it is you will have to trick her or coerce her into revealing it or get it from another person. Good luck with that.

Another theory is that she is afraid of feeling certain emotions for you and she erects barriers to prevent certain behaviors from triggering those emotions. She can't control the emotions but she can control the outward behavior. I've run into this type of thing as well.

Growing up a huge Wolverine fan, I appreciate this category a lot. I grew up idolizing Wolverine to an obsessive degree. Even to the point of wanting to grown mutton chops as soon as I could grow my own facial hair.

1 word: testosterone. doesn't matter 1 bit if you're extroverted or introverted, super high testosterone will make you indifferent and totally calm to others, as well as aggressive when you want to be with no apology. try testosterone cream and tell me im wrong. alpha/sigma is biology, not really whether you're an outcast or not. I grew up in a friendly, communal environment yet I remain a total loner and idgafuck.

Sadly I've discovered this thread late and I'm hoping I might find some assistance on a personal matter...

First off I've very much enjoyed reading this thread. I've learned so much!

Let's say for the sake of avoiding losing focus on my question, I am a sigma.

An alpha, who is apparently threatened by me, has lashed out with a threat via email. His message is overflowing with defensive, immature cliches and littered with his own misinterpretations attempting to hurt me, all in past tense so its clear all of what he's mentioned is fact in his mind.

My introversion tells me "hes just an alpha, you cant convince him otherwise, its clear hes made up his mind, leave it alone" but my quiet alpha wants to be heard and put him in his place... but again, he is an alpha and he will resort to escalating the conversation physically and I see that solving absolutely nothing.

So behavioral groups have their hierarchical solutions, ie Alphas assert dominance, Bettas concede... but what happens when an Alpha takes on a Sigma? I want to stay quiet and let him enjoy his moment of false and ignorant victory, but my pride wants to reassert my own pride, against my usual demeanor. I do not like being belittled by an alpha.

This could get messy eventually, between my own internal introversion vs alpha as well as my external conflict of alpha vs. sigma.

I too have struggled with this. If it gets physical, do it in a place that castrates him socially. If he is top dog in his circle, just landing a punch will shock his circle. Remember as an introvert our trade is efficiency of action brought by self awareness and internal stimulus. He requires external stimulus to act, making him predictable, and emotionally clouded.

Other than that, silence. It works wonders on men who go girl on you with their s*&t talk, just as it does on a female.

Thank you for the input. Since this post Ive offered him nothing but silence, although I think this was his goal. Ive come home after being away for quite a while and Im beginning to believe his lashing out was a preemptive buffer to keep me from interfering with a female conquest with one thats been interested in me in the past. Hes probably put alot of effort into securing this girl and is afraid Ill be a quick end to it all.... silly alphas lol.

Hey therе I аm sο delightеd І fοunԁ youг websitе, I reаlly fοund уоu bу erroг, whilе І wаs seaгching οn Gоoglе foг something else, Αnyways Ӏ аm here noω anԁ wоuld just liκe to say cheerѕ for а fantаѕtiс post and a all гοunԁ enteгtаinіng blog (ӏ аlso loνе the thеmе/dеsign), I don't have time to look over it all at the minute but I have saved it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the fantastic job.

I am a sigma female. It is a hard place to explain from. I am content to do my own thing, but also content to hang out with friends. I live by myself because I prefer the solitude, but enjoy my friends when I do go out. But, I get irritated if there is no plan and I feel the drive to take over or my friends naturally look to me to lead. I do have a very dominant personality, but don't care to worry about the details and bother of leadership. That said, I tend to rebel and challenge any that attempt to control or direct me. I grit my teeth at any advice from an alpha personality, but can take it from a beta or omega with no problem. I am a highly successful professional working on my masters degree. And since I have seen some type discussions. I am IsTp. High I, Low S, High T, and low p.

You can be both introverted (not shy) and be on the high end of social dominance. There is a difference of style that attracts different kinds of people. A "Sigma" is just a dominant male who is introverted, that is, his brain is wired in a different way.

The "Drive" character comes to mind. I also meet "Alphas" and "Sigmas" in my business dealings and can recognize both types between my friends, they were both successful getting women, money and status.

For an introvert, trying to be the "alpha" that PUA programs teach is counterproductive. Also an "alpha" would have a hard time trying to be perceived as the "strong and silent" type.

"I would call horizontal social mobility, which is the ability to succeed in social situations without trying. If you are dominant enough, people will naturally want you to lead and you will be pushed inward toward the center of most social circles." "As someone who has this trait even I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they say something verifiably wrong, and refuses to change their stance. Intellectual contempt for other people's opinions must be like breathing for a sigma."

Holy Shit you just described my entire life in a few sentences. I cannot even begin to count the number of social circles that I have purposely rejected because of my lone wolf nature. I have almost no friends but probably a few thousand acquaintances but that is exactly where my dominance lies. When I walk into a social circle I barely even lift a finger and the spotlight is on me instantly. However, I am not an alpha but a sigma so I never play by the rules but I still win in the sexual and social marketplace. I am deeply hated or cautiously respected by alphas because I never respect them like everyone else seems to do. This is very obvious when I enter a room. It seems that the whole world wants me to lead but I decline. I also give off a very sexual bad boy vibe that girls feel instantly when I chat them up or touch them. This is mostly because I have a very dark story behind my life and girls somehow seem to predict that because they consistently ask me to give them my bio. I finally know the term for what I am. Its like I've come full circle.

I forgot to mention that I completely and totally numb to other people's reactions as humanly possible. People find my stoic attitude very appealing because it shows that I am always in control, which I am.